Not necessarily. The term slippery slope comes to mind. Once it starts granting permission for a 3rd pre season game, all program will find a worthy charity and pretty soon it becomes the norm. The two schools could easily payoff one of their scheduled opponents and play the other game instead. Looks to me like a sneaky way to get a third preseason game against a quality opponent without giving up the two others.

If you want loyalty get a dog; better yet, get two just in case one turns on you.

Perhaps, but the fact that its an application for waiver for a one time event (at least I hope the Carolina’s don’t get hit with big hurricanes every year) means that the NCAA can prevent abuse of the rule.

There is an easy solution. Both teams can pay off one of their scheduled pre-season opponents and play each other instead. If the end goal is to raise money, the opponents will not have any objections since they would be paid not to play. Now it looks like they are trying to get a third game.

If you want loyalty get a dog; better yet, get two just in case one turns on you.

Interesting that we don’t play one, I don’t know that I’d want to play a real competitive game tho just because you don’t want to hurt guys. I know that can happen in the exhibition games too but usually that’s so one sided our guys don’t have to go super hard.

It is indeed a slippery slope. If fund raiser games are given an exception, what prevents big programs to schedule 3, 4, 5, 6 or more fund raising games? The number of exhibition games is already set and school are free to use them to fund raise if they do desire. The number of pre-season/exhibition games is set so teams will not start playing too early and place an undue burden on players which, believe it or not, are also students. This is the reason why overseas tours and pre season tournaments are allowed only every so many years.

If you want loyalty get a dog; better yet, get two just in case one turns on you.

@JayHawkFanToo It’s not a slippery slope. Coaches wouldn’t want to risk players. People would stop coming if they were too frequent. There could be guidelines sent out for teams to follow or their waivers will get denied (like the game must be within a bus distance of roughly 3 hours). The NCAA would still be in complete control of the situation if they wanted to be.

@JayHawkFanToo May I add in that the NCAA basically already backed what I said. They can be grouchy and tell kids to get off their lawn anytime they feel like it. They just let KU play 3 exhibition games last year for Hurricane relief as you already know. And were still able to tell the Carolina’s they don’t deserve to have any hurricane relief.

There are already guidelines in place and waivers are not needed. Teams are allowed two exhibition games that they can schedule any way they want and there is no reason why they cannot use one of them as a fundraiser. Also, teams can always leave one regular season game unscheduled and they can use it as a fundraiser as needed or just give the kids a breather and not use it.

If you want loyalty get a dog; better yet, get two just in case one turns on you.

@JayHawkFanToo I can’t even take you serious lol. Your stance on this is so hilarious!!! Like I feel like I’m getting punk’d. Its hysterical at this point!!

UNC SHOULD HAVE PLANNED TO GET HIT BY A HURRICANE A YEAR AGO!

You have taken my words completely out of context to fit your narrative. Not cool.

If UNC and South Carolina really want to play a game to raise money all they have to do is buy out one of their exhibition opponents, the going rate is about $10K, so they can easily do it and even pay a premium buyout and still raise a lot of money. Easy solution unless what they really want is an extra game that will not count against quality competition.

…and no, you are not being punked, I presented a viable alternative that you refuse to even consider, so any further discussion is moot.

If you want loyalty get a dog; better yet, get two just in case one turns on you.

By dropping an exhibition game they would have to also refund season ticket holders for that game, or piss them off very much. They would have to pay the other school they planned to play still. And then when it is all said and done it cost both schools $500k each to host a Charity game that raised $1.5M. It is not a logical solution.

Especially when they could just a play a 3rd game and raise $1.5M with no added expenses to either team. And this doesn’t even consider the fact that your solution still has them breaking the NCAA guidelines of playing another D1. So you’re ok making an exception of one rule, but not this rule? Why?